Ali, R v [2021] EWCA Crim 653

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.[2021] EWCA Crim 653Case No 202002126/B5
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Thursday 18 February 2021
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
LORD JUSTICE HOLROYDEMR JUSTICE LAVENDERMR JUSTICE CAVANAGHREGINACrownVMOHAMMED ALI__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JSTel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________NON-COUNSEL APPLICATION_________J U D G M E N T

judge.

[2]the victim of that offence.[3]acknowledged that in the witness box at trial he admitted punching V.[4]that she was consenting.[5]and sent a confirmatory letter dated 18 March 2008.[6]"The learned judge cannot be criticised in relation to any direction of law. There were no material irregularities during the course of the trial."[7]rape.[8]Stephen Burdon Solicitors were unaware of any such complaint until September 2020. The applicant criticises Stephen Burdon Solicitors for not providing him with the papers in the case. There is no evidence that he requested any of those papers before 2012. In 2008 he asked for a transcript of the trial. Stephen Burdon Solicitors wrote to him on 4 November 2008, explaining how he could contact the transcribers, but he did not do so. The applicant instructed another firm of solicitors, Swain & Co., who wrote to Stephen Burdon Solicitors on 8 November 2012 requesting paperwork. They were sent the witness statements. On 22 January 2013 the applicant asked for the paperwork to be sent directly to him in prison. Stephen Burdon Solicitors offered to send it instead to Swain & Co. The applicant did not take any further action, such as instructing Swain & Co. to request more documents or complaining to the Legal Ombudsman. At some point thereafter Stephen Burdon Solicitors destroyed their file in accordance with usual practice. The complaint about this, made by the applicant to the Legal Ombudsman in 2018, was dismissed.[9]Co. to assist with an appeal against conviction, but claims that they said they could not get legal aid. There is no evidence that Swain & Co. considered that an appeal would have[10]any merit.[11]time. Indeed, there does not appear to be any merit in the proposed appeal.[12]appeal. Accordingly, we refuse the extension of time and refuse the application for leave to appeal. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk